ultra-builder-pro-cli 5.0.1 → 6.0.0

package/docs/SKILL-AUTHORING.md

@@ -1,113 +0,0 @@
-# Skill authoring contract
-
-Ultra Skills are portable model-facing methods. They describe outcomes, evidence, and
-owner boundaries; host-specific discovery and invocation policy belong in adapters.
-
-## Role selection
-
-Choose exactly one role before writing:
-
-- **public workflow**: an owner-invocable workflow with one or more declared modes and
-  a durable outcome;
-- **model-invoked**: a reusable discipline used by at least two canonical workflows;
-- **router**: read-only diagnosis that recommends the smallest next public route.
-
-Every public mode is `explicit-entry` or `grant-continuable`. A public workflow may
-continue to another public mode only when a currently valid Execution Grant covers the
-same Change, exact mode, effects, and stop conditions, and only after showing the Route
-Card. Otherwise it stops and recommends the owner-invoked route. Host metadata never
-substitutes for that in-Skill check. A discipline with only one real caller should be
-inlined.
-
-## Portable frontmatter
-
-Source `SKILL.md` frontmatter contains only:
-
-```yaml
----
-name: lower-case-hyphen-name
-description: What this produces and the concrete situations that trigger it.
----
-```
-
-Adapters generate Claude/Grok/Kimi invocation flags, Codex `agents/openai.yaml`, and
-ZCode-native plugin metadata.
-Do not put host paths, dependency declarations, plugin policy, or release history in
-source frontmatter.
-
-## Required shape
-
-Every Skill has one outcome-led title and these semantic sections:
-
-```text
-## Before you start
-## Definition of done
-## <workflow-specific process>
-## When the owner decides
-## References
-```
-
-Every public workflow and router also has `## Route modes` with a `Mode | Entry |
-Observable exit | Next` table and references the canonical
-`ultra-status/references/route-contract.md`. Shared card fields, material checkpoints,
-continuation, and degraded recovery live only in that reference; each Skill owns only
-its modes and workflow-specific facts.
-
-User workflows first resolve at most one active `change_id`, then read only matching
-rows from `.ultra/tasks.json`, the frontier task's `context_file` and Resume Note,
-`CONTEXT.md`, and relevant decisions. Historical or abandoned rows never become current
-from status alone. They name the files they write and read them back. Completion
-criteria must be observable without a semantic validator.
-
-Use positive leading words consistently: tracer bullet, seam, deep module, red,
-frontier, and research boundary. Explain a branch by its checkable result, not the
-model's reason for choosing it.
-
-## Progressive disclosure
-
-Keep resident `SKILL.md` short enough to load on every invocation. Move focused detail
-into `references/` and deterministic validation or waiting into `scripts/`.
-
-- Load one research step or review lens at a time.
-- Keep Research's semantic lenses and optional Wayfinding map inside
-  `ultra-research/references/`; they are stages of that public workflow, not reusable
-  model-invoked Skills.
-- Keep one canonical copy of grilling, TDD, review, domain language, and autonomy rules.
-- Cross-reference another model-invoked Skill by relative path.
-- Do not hide the primary workflow in a script.
-- A script may check paths, schemas, counts, hashes, process status, or other mechanical
-  facts; it may not decide semantic completeness.
-
-Rule-side executable examples live with the consuming Skill. They are never copied
-wholesale into project authority.
-
-## Language and host neutrality
-
-Model-facing Skills, references, scripts, comments, and identifiers are English.
-Shared Skills never mention `.claude`, `.codex`, `.opencode`, `.kimi`, `.grok`, `.zcode`, or a
-host-only question surface. Use “host-native question surface” and put the translation
-in the adapter.
-
-## Safety boundary
-
-The owner decides intent, acceptance, reductions, material risk, irreversible actions,
-and external effects. The model owns investigation, design, decomposition, evidence
-interpretation, reversible implementation detail, and final expression.
-
-Semantic gaps are diagnostics. A Skill must not invent a hard gate based on counters,
-regexes, similarity, context estimates, or workflow position. Every real hard effect
-guard names its invariant, authoritative input, blocked effect, and reachable repair.
-
-## Validation
-
-For every changed Skill:
-
-1. run the Skill Creator validator;
-2. resolve every relative reference in the source and installed artifact;
-3. verify its role metadata on all six hosts;
-4. test the accepted workflow with representative valid and adversarial inputs;
-5. confirm no retired runtime vocabulary or host-specific path entered portable text.
-6. run the Route Contract structural test and inspect the applicable owner journey.
-
-The repository's `tests/skill-authoring.test.cjs` and
-`tests/v026-contract.test.cjs` mechanize the portable parts of this contract.

package/docs/WORKFLOW-LIFECYCLE.md

@@ -1,350 +0,0 @@
-# Ultra Builder Pro workflow lifecycle
-
-Ultra 5.0 has no fixed runtime state machine. Skills define checkable entry and exit
-criteria; repository files record facts; the host model chooses the route.
-
-## Capability flow
-
-```text
-ultra-init/create|recover ──raw Project Brief──► ultra-research/baseline
-                                                       │
-                                                       ▼
-                                               ultra-change/intake
-                                                       │
-                   ┌── ultra-research/change-scoped ◄──┤ evidence-needed
-                   └── ultra-change/reconcile ─────────┘
-                                                       │ accepted
-                                                       ▼
-
-ultra-change ─► ultra-plan ─► ultra-dev (per task) ─► ultra-test ─► ultra-deliver
-                     ▲                 │                    │
-                     └── replan ◄──────┘                    └── findings return to owner/model
-
-ultra-status    read-only router at any point
-ultra-delegate  orthogonal bounded execution on another CLI
-```
-
-Arrows are recommendations unless a live owner-activated Execution Grant authorizes the
-exact next mode. Public modes are either `explicit-entry`, `grant-continuable`, or
-read-only `router`; model-only methods are `model-discipline`. Scoped Research,
-same-Change reconciliation, Plan, Dev, Test, and Deliver reconciliation may continue
-only when the grant covers the same `change_id`, mode, effects, and stop conditions.
-Init, Change intake/evidence/acceptance/abandonment/primary transfer, Delegate, Deliver
-finalization, archive, and every external effect remain explicit-entry. Status remains
-owner-invoked, read-only, and supplies no continuation authority. Delivery archives one stable
-`change_id`; the next request opens a new active id while prior task rows remain in the
-append-only ledger.
-
-## Topology and checkpoints
-
-The owner chooses the Agent topology at every stage: one Agent or several, which
-providers, which write scopes, serial or parallel. The unspecified default is the
-current Agent continuing alone — no automatic spawning, delegation, or control-plane
-enablement, and no provider permanently bound to a role. One primary writer owns the
-canonical `.ultra` files in a worktree; parallel source writes use isolated worktrees
-with explicit integration. Moving the primary-writer role itself to another Agent is
-an owner-granted primary transfer — OFFER, verified ACK, sole-writer execution,
-frozen terminal RESULT — and never a widened delegation
-(`skills/ultra-change/references/primary-transfer.md`).
-
-Every owner-facing checkpoint — a WIP at a stop, a closing Resume Note, a delivery
-report — carries the eight fixed semantics defined in
-[artifact authority](ARTIFACT-AUTHORITY.md#owner-checkpoint-semantics): why, outcome,
-accepted boundary, delta, reality, decision needed, next bounded action, and not-done.
-The shared [Route Contract](../skills/ultra-status/references/route-contract.md) adds
-Route, Mode, Position, and Exit condition as navigation around those semantics. Every
-public Skill shows the card at entry, a material checkpoint, pause/blocked exit, normal
-exit, and before a public transition. Cards are derived observations, not stage markers,
-permission, or persisted route state; alignment failure stops work until the owner
-re-accepts an outcome.
-
-## Common mode-aware entry contract
-
-Every user-invoked Skill reads, in order:
-
-1. zero or one `.ultra/changes/active/<change_id>/intent.md`; more than one is a conflict;
-2. `.ultra/tasks.json`, selecting only tasks whose `change_id` matches that active id
-   and treating its v2 row as the sole task-status authority;
-3. the matching frontier task's `context_file` and closing `## Resume Note`;
-4. `.ultra/project-brief.md`, the accepted `.ultra/north-star.md`, `CONTEXT.md`, and
-   relevant `.ultra/decisions/`, where those artifacts already exist;
-5. the active Change, specifications, evidence, maintained documentation, and Git state
-   relevant to its scope.
-
-Missing files produce a precise recovery or initialization recommendation. They do not
-cause the Skill to invent a state transition.
-
-After reading these facts, the Skill chooses only one mode declared in its own Route
-table and emits the entry Route Card. If model-selected, it revalidates that this mode is
-grant-continuable and that the grant covers the same Change and effects. Host metadata
-is only coarse discovery; it never substitutes for this runtime check.
-
-## Initialization
-
-Init writes the raw Project Brief and stable empty skeleton. `ultra-init` preserves the
-owner's one-line request, broad outline, explicit inputs, and open questions without
-turning them into validated product truth. It initializes Git when absent and may
-preserve repository-observable brownfield facts as Research inputs. It does not define
-success, establish the North Star, create `CONTEXT.md`, populate specifications, or
-launch another workflow.
-
-## Research
-
-Research has two modes. `baseline` explicitly turns the brief into an accepted North
-Star and evidence-backed baseline. `change-scoped` answers only one active Change's
-recorded Research Disposition and returns named evidence to that same Change for
-reconciliation. `ultra-research` uses Wayfinding only when a multi-lens path is unclear,
-then records entry question, selected lenses, omissions, dependencies, source plan,
-material checkpoints, observable stop condition, and return route before mapping the
-question to the smallest useful subset of seventeen focused references. The first six
-are semantic lenses with real dependencies: `00` precedes `01`; conditional `02` and
-`03` may fan out after the boundary is known; `04` consumes their relevant conclusions
-and is the first owner checkpoint; `05` extracts assumptions from `00` through `04`.
-Grilling controls how missing owner inputs are asked, Think tests one consequential
-decision, and Domain Modeling writes settled vocabulary; none owns the Research route.
-The baseline synthesis promotes accepted conclusions into the North Star, `CONTEXT.md`,
-three specifications, and a source-hash-bound distillate. A change-scoped run updates
-only its mapped sections and never changes Change acceptance on its own. Lens counts are
-navigation facts, not semantic progress or a completion signal.
-
-## Change reconciliation
-
-Change updates only the touched baseline rather than rebuilding it. Its visible modes
-are `intake`, `evidence-needed`, `reconcile`, and `accepted`. `ultra-change` first
-compares requested behavior with accepted product truth and current code. It classifies
-changes by the resulting commitments:
-
-- expansion and correction may proceed inside accepted intent;
-- a reduction waits for explicit owner authority.
-
-The output is one active Change intent with observable outcome, acceptance, seams,
-non-goals, trace anchors, and an explicit Research Disposition. `none` cites sufficient
-existing evidence; `bounded` or `required` names the exact question, lenses, and exit
-evidence. Unsatisfied exit evidence routes to Research, then back through Change
-reconciliation before planning when the accepted contract needs an update.
-
-Draft intent is mutable. Revising a consequential accepted answer creates a superseding
-decision record so Status can reconstruct history without treating an event log as
-authority. Only same-Change, non-material `reconcile` may continue under a valid grant;
-opening or accepting a boundary, abandoning it, reducing a commitment, or changing the
-canonical writer is an explicit owner checkpoint.
-
-If the owner rejects the offered options as inadequate, Change preserves that answer,
-keeps the draft unresolved, and returns to evidence or materially different options. It
-never selects the closest rejected option or advances to Plan by default.
-
-A micro edit that makes no specification sentence false stays outside the Ultra
-lifecycle and uses ordinary repository TDD/verification. Once an active Change exists,
-Plan creates the smallest graph justified by the real seams, evidence, review, and
-recovery needs so delivery remains bound to its id; a profile never fixes task count. A
-separate request cannot open a second active Change: finish or deliver the current one,
-abandon it with owner authority, or explicitly reconcile the new request into the same
-stable id.
-
-## Planning
-
-`ultra-plan` confirms a material scope posture and records public seams, then appends a
-current-Change task graph and one context file per task without deleting historical
-rows. The model chooses ordinary technical seams; the owner is asked only when a seam
-changes a public contract, accepted risk, or another material trade-off. Every task
-stores the stable `change_id`; dependencies stay inside that Change and ids remain
-globally unique. Feature tasks are tracer bullets. A contract task precedes dependent
-implementations when a shared contract must remain valid across independently changed
-boundaries; integration checkpoints appear where slices first compose or observed
-coupling and recovery risk justify a whole-path check. Cycles and broken trace paths are
-repaired before handoff. Complexity, file, task, line, and context counts are
-observations rather than plan-quality gates.
-
-Plan names the earliest executable tracer bullet's real consumer, real data path, and
-owner-visible observation. A product or contract evidence gap returns to
-`ultra-change/reconcile`; Change decides whether bounded Research is required. Ordinary
-technical uncertainty remains model-owned or becomes a bounded spike/tracer task, so
-Plan never bypasses Change by opening product Research directly.
-
-## Task development
-
-`ultra-dev` writes the implementation plan into the task context before code. It uses
-`ultra-tdd` on confirmed seams and records `ultra-task-evidence-v2`: typed acceptance,
-six evidence dimensions, subject/context identity, limitations, and task-review
-provenance. `.ultra/tasks.json` is the sole task-status authority; a new context has no
-Status field, while legacy Status/Complexity values are migration diagnostics and the
-ledger wins. The closing Resume Note is rewritten even when work stops early.
-Before publishing that record, Dev hashes bounded stable repository-contained bytes for
-every command or external `raw_evidence_ref` into `raw_evidence_sha256` and reads both
-the raw receipt and written record back. Structural validation checks ref/digest shape
-without dereferencing the receipt.
-
-Task review selects lenses by risk and touched seams while the ledger row remains `in_progress`.
-Its first admission binds the ledger, task context, immutable packet scope, and actual
-pre-review evidence. It does not require a final v2 record or claim a task worktree
-digest that Worker Packet v1 does not carry.
-Findings move through stable JSON artifacts, not intermediate worker chatter. Verdicts
-are terminal for the current subject: `APPROVE` ends the task review even when P2/P3
-findings are retained — they become report entries or owner-selected backlog, never a
-fresh review of the same subject. `REQUEST_CHANGES` routes only the exact current
-P0/P1 findings as one in-scope repair set followed by one affected-lens delta review
-per repair set inside the active review budget — an exact current owner grant
-overrides the versioned product default of one initial review plus at most two
-P0/P1 delta reviews per package; a `REQUEST_CHANGES` that would exceed the active
-budget is an owner checkpoint, not another automatic repair, and the same root
-surviving three failed fixes stops point-patching and reports an architecture
-problem. Lens selection follows the review kind, never a fixed count: an initial task
-review selects `review-spec` plus the lenses justified by risk and touched seams, a
-delta review reruns only the affected lenses, and an aggregate Change review may
-default to all six only when cross-task wiring justifies it. Budget exhaustion keeps the row `in_progress` and returns
-`owner checkpoint` / `budget_exhausted` without any semantic verdict.
-After the final summary validates, Dev independently captures the `subject`
-as a completion-snapshot freshness observation and immediately writes the one canonical
-v2 record; its `task_review` separately binds the retained strict summary, which does not
-prove the subject worktree digest. Only then may the primary model write `completed` to
-the ledger. Refactoring happens
-when evidence makes real duplication, coupling, or a boundary defect visible, never
-because a slice, finding, file, or repair-round count crossed a threshold.
-
-If later work invalidates completed evidence, Dev records the affected criterion IDs and reason in the context Change Log and Resume Note before changing the
-ledger-authoritative row from `completed` to `in_progress`; there is no silent demotion.
-The old frozen review remains historical evidence while the reopened task refreshes the
-affected observations, obtains a new final review, and captures a new completion subject.
-
-## Whole-system audit
-
-`ultra-test` runs once after tasks for the active Change are completed in the ledger
-with current v2 evidence and retained task-review provenance. Historical v1 evidence is
-a migration diagnostic, not current Test input. It checks anti-patterns, coverage,
-wiring, E2E behavior, performance, and security. It names the exact Git commit and
-binds the report to `change_id`, exact current task ids, intent SHA-256, and the
-product-worktree digest for the current whole Change. Each task evidence subject remains
-its independently captured completion-snapshot freshness observation rather than being
-rebound to this aggregate identity. Test independently rechecks current Acceptance bytes,
-criterion IDs and verification types, retained task-review summary, durable owner record,
-and cited affected artifacts. For command and external evidence it independently takes
-the bounded stable non-symlink raw bytes, recomputes `raw_evidence_sha256`, then recomputes
-the containing record's `evidence_digest`. `.ultra/evidence/**` is excluded from the
-product-worktree digest, so these separate exact bindings prevent a self-referential
-receipt. An invalidated task returns to the explicit Dev reopen
-path. `passed: true` implies complete current tasks and no required
-area left `not_run`; task completion does not force a pass, and dispositioned gaps stay
-visible. It never turns an orphan,
-failed command, stub, or omission into permission to alter scope.
-
-## Delivery
-
-`ultra-deliver` uses two observable passes. The first reconciles actual outcome,
-specifications, documentation, aggregate review, omissions, and rollback; if semantic
-or product files change, it stops and recommends a fresh Test. The second begins only
-when report Change/task/intent/HEAD/product identities match, applies the changed-export
-gate, runs build and non-publishing package inspection, records version impact, writes
-delivery metadata, and archives the same stable id with `git mv`. Delivery metadata and
-the directory move do not invalidate their own product snapshot. Producing a release
-package remains blocked while a changed export has neither a non-test consumer nor an
-owner disposition. That disposition is recorded against the finding in the current
-test report without changing the finding or `passed`, then carried into `delivery.md`.
-
-Commit, push, tag, publication, release, and deployment are independent external
-effects. Readiness grants none automatically.
-
-## Status routing
-
-`ultra-status` infers the smallest next route from observable files:
-
-- no healthy skeleton or usable raw brief → init;
-- raw brief without an accepted baseline → baseline research;
-- requested outcome without active Change → change;
-- draft or blocking active intent → change;
-- unsatisfied Research Disposition → change-scoped research, then the same Change reconciliation;
-- active Change without matching executable tasks → plan;
-- the unique matching `in_progress` task → dev;
-- only `pending` tasks remaining → report them as frontier candidates and recommend
-  one exact task id for an explicit owner invocation of dev;
-- a completed ledger row with missing, stale, or invalid v2 evidence/task review → dev
-  to record affected criteria and reason, explicitly reopen, and repair provenance;
-- completed current-Change tasks with current v2 evidence and no matching fresh report → test;
-- false report → route by finding and owner disposition, not by the boolean alone;
-- fresh, dispositioned report and unarchived Change → deliver.
-
-It also checks installation provenance, unresolved markers, broken resume paths, and
-report freshness by root Change identity, exact ordered v2 task-evidence/review
-identities, and strict aggregate Review packet/admission/subject/summary bindings. It
-replays the existing structural validators; they observe transport and freshness but
-never decide semantic acceptance. Age, complexity, and file/task counts may be reported
-as context but never decide staleness or quality. It does not mutate artifacts.
-
-Status outputs the Route Card by default and expands `history`, `installation`,
-`delegation`, or `recovery` on request. An ambiguous or malformed active authority stops
-semantic routing and writes, but not diagnosis: recovery mode reports the typed fact,
-safe Git/directory observations, and the cheapest repair/retry/cancel/abandon path
-without selecting an ambiguous intent as truth.
-
-## Delegation
-
-`ultra-delegate` is orthogonal to the lifecycle and requires explicit owner authority.
-Its immutable instruction selects task execution/continuation, scoped Research evidence,
-or aggregate Change review/verification. Task execution reads one matching task context;
-the latter two may be read-only and do not require a task, so both pre-Plan evidence and
-post-task review remain reachable. Every scope still binds the one active `change_id`, a
-clean isolated worktree, strict permission/result schemas, and primary-host inspection.
-The worker cannot write canonical `.ultra` files or perform external effects.
-Delegation itself is explicit-entry. Tool calls, plans, usage, permissions, process
-output, ACP updates, and terminal transport state remain execution observations; only
-the primary writer interprets the validated result against Research, task, review, or
-Test acceptance and selects the semantic route.
-
-## Artifact closure
-
-Every durable output has a later reader:
-
-- init's Project Brief is consumed by Research, Status, and the pre-baseline session
-  Hook fallback; its empty skeleton supplies stable paths rather than product claims;
-- Research's accepted North Star and domain/specification baseline are read by every
-  later workflow, while selected reports trace into Change reconciliation, planning,
-  and delivery;
-- active Change intent and its touched specification deltas are consumed through
-  planning, development, audit, review, status, and delivery; an abandoned intent has
-  an exact `## Abandonment` closure consumed by future Change reconciliation and Status;
-- the append-only task ledger and contexts are the common resume input after filtering
-  by active `change_id`, while typed v2 task evidence and retained task-review
-  provenance feed review, whole-system audit, and delivery;
-- the current test report is consumed by status and delivery;
-- delivery moves with the Change into archive and remains historical evidence.
-
-`ultra-status` intentionally writes nothing. Review, Hook, compact, and delegation
-files are derived observations rather than semantic authority. A current strict review
-session contains `WORKER-PACKET.json`, `ADMISSION.json`, every selected specialist
-artifact, and `SUMMARY.json`; retain it until aggregate Test and Deliver have both consumed it
-successfully, then it may be garbage-collected. Premature loss requires a fresh Review
-and Test; never reconstruct the old receipt. Other derived observations keep their
-explicit rebuild or rerun paths. No route creates an unowned drift log, parallel planning file,
-technical-debt report, or second delivery summary.
-
-## Interruption and cross-host continuation
-
-There is one primary writer for canonical `.ultra` files. Review workers are read-only;
-delegated source edits use isolated worktrees and return results for explicit
-integration. Parallel canonical writes are unsupported because silently merging intent,
-task, evidence, or report authority would lose meaning.
-
-Before stopping, the active task context records current facts, exact verification,
-open questions, Completion, and a closing Resume Note. The next session or host repeats
-the common entry contract, compares the working tree with those claims, and derives a
-fresh Route Card. It does not rerun completed Research merely because conversation
-memory is gone. When context pressure threatens a reliable continuation, the current
-Agent finishes the nearest safe write, refreshes the Resume Note, shows a stop card, and
-recommends a fresh session; context size does not become route authority.
-
-This path remains valid when hooks and `ubp` are disabled. A compact snapshot may be
-used as a hint, then checked against canonical files and Git.
-
-Continuing on a different Agent — not merely a different host — additionally
-requires a primary transfer: an exact owner grant, a derived OFFER binding the
-canonical refs, HEAD, and worktree digest, the receiver's stable-read ACK, and a
-frozen terminal RESULT (`skills/ultra-change/references/primary-transfer.md`).
-Receipts are derived state; when they are lost, the owner confirms and a fresh
-handoff id is issued rather than reconstructing an old ACK. The post-review
-task closeout never refreshes that RESULT or opens a handoff for itself: beside
-a newest completed v2 RESULT it publishes the handoff's CLOSEOUT receipt — the
-one prescribed, uncommitted, review-and-handoff-free closeout transition of the
-same contract.
-
-An authenticated Claude-to-Codex continuation using this path passed on 2026-08-03;
-the exact scope, provenance, results, and limitations are recorded in the
-[runtime compatibility matrix](RUNTIME-COMPAT-MATRIX.md#authenticated-cross-host-continuation-evidence).

package/docs/evals/adversarial-review-2026-08-14.md

@@ -1,84 +0,0 @@
-# 对抗性审查盲测记录 — 2026-08-14
-
-## 结论
-
-本轮证据不支持增加永久第七个 `premise` lens。当前 `review-spec` 在明确要求校验
-North Star 因果贡献后，已经覆盖候选 lens 的五类已知缺陷；候选 lens 没有稳定找到
-当前 roster 漏掉的 consequential defect class。
-
-因此保留六 lens roster，把 premise challenge 固化到 `review-spec`，并把独立
-`premise` 角色保留为 Plan 与 aggregate Test 的 blind cross-family probe。这个 probe
-是隔离采样，不参与投票，也不能用无效结果替代六 lens findings。
-
-## 评估边界
-
-- Fixture revision: `37c07dc8596cda64a93aac260917b3c091ad1b58`
-- Hidden seeds: `tests/evals/adversarial-review-seeds.json`
-- Current prompt: `tests/evals/prompts/current-spec-lens.md`
-- Candidate prompt: `tests/evals/prompts/candidate-premise-lens.md`
-- Six-lens probe: `tests/evals/prompts/current-six-lens-probe.md`
-- Permission: read-only、无 external effects、独立 Git worktree
-- Claude Code: `2.1.232`
-- Kimi Code: `0.31.1`，显式模型 `kimi-code/k3`
-- Grok Build: `1.0.3 (1a29d5bc12d4)`
-- ZCode CLI: `0.16.3`，临时非持久化 provider 配置，GLM-5.3
-
-Seed manifest 从所有 Worker Packet 中隐藏。所有有效结果都通过
-`ultra-delegation-result-v1`、packet digest、只读 diff 和 launcher strict validation；
-模型陈述“未修改文件”本身不算权限证据。
-
-## Seed 映射
-
-| Run | Premise | Correctness | Test coverage | Recovery | Documentation | 可计分 |
-|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
-| `spec-claude` / current spec | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
-| `premise-claude` / candidate | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
-| `six-kimi` / current six concerns | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
-| `spec-zcode-3` / current spec | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
-| `spec-grok-4` / current spec | partial raw text | partial raw text | partial | no stable result | partial | no |
-| `premise-grok-4` / candidate | partial raw text | partial raw text | partial | partial | partial | no |
-
-Claude 的 candidate 产生了比 current spec 更多的表述和风险拆分，但没有新增 seed class。
-Kimi 的完整六关注面与 ZCode 的 current spec 都再次找到五类 seed，说明 premise/causal
-挑战可以被最窄地放进 specification fidelity，而不必增加一个永久 lens。
-
-Grok 四轮尝试均以 exit code 0 结束，但输出被 host wrapper 截断或混入重复、畸形 JSON，
-launcher 正确发布 `failure_type: missing_result`。原始片段里出现若干真实缺陷不能算成功
-findings；这证明的是 Grok 1.0.3 的 structured-result conformance 缺口，不是 lens 语义结论。
-
-## 原始观察
-
-原始 receipt、worker spec、stdout、stderr 与 terminal result 保存在可重建观察区：
-
-`.ultra/.runtime/adversarial-eval/2026-08-14/delegations/`
-
-关键 terminal result SHA-256：
-
-- `spec-claude/result.json`: `14156c2fd86936a725fe5e9e42b90e8cb9e80e2d3045304046bd9791baa5caaf`
-- `premise-claude/result.json`: `bf39a38b5893f53a18f95f55932b28e381edbf2f4a8bae9b1dd1180b61267bbd`
-- `six-kimi/result.json`: `ca523134aa30f2ad39ebf539dd2b31b74b06c966c37d4cee4feae17574bf6aaf`
-- `spec-zcode-3/result.json`: `f9409cdd62a5e41a5b183cbed155e25e097ec9a27d0d0bfae0f9e74d87468956`
-- `spec-grok-4/result.json`: `0d33a9f5f4a80d75b0ebb908d30f6d12d9e26be1f3122b976dfd126fba8a34de`
-- `premise-grok-4/result.json`: `6e33fd9fc6a17313151a640717ad257efbfb780417044f8b9d92cc46acd128b5`
-
-该目录是 disposable evidence，不是项目语义权威；可由 tracked fixture、prompts 和当前
-delegate launcher 重建。
-
-## 产品决定
-
-1. 六 lens roster 不变。
-2. `review-spec` 必须同时验证 accepted behavior、North Star Trace、因果链、contradiction
-   disposition，以及“全部 acceptance 通过但 outcome 仍失败”的路径。
-3. Plan review 与 aggregate Test review 必须产出六 lens session；没有 findings artifact
-   不得声称阶段完成。
-4. 可用不同 model family 时追加一次 blind premise probe；不可用时记录缺失，不伪造独立性。
-5. `execution_mode` 和每个 worker 的 coverage refs 必须落盘。顺序角色扮演只能记录为
-   `sequential_fallback`，不能声称 isolated multi-agent。
-6. 只有 fresh blind fixture 反复证明 current roster 漏掉独立 consequential class 时，
-   才重新讨论第七 lens。
-
-## 最便宜复测
-
-先运行 `node --test tests/adversarial-review-eval.test.cjs`，确认 green-test trap 与五个
-hidden seed 仍存在；然后在新的隔离上下文中用相同 permission 分别运行 current spec 与
-candidate premise prompts。不得向 worker 暴露 seed manifest 或本报告。

package/docs/evals/ultra-5-0-journey-results.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# Ultra Builder Pro 5.0 journey 验收结果 — 2026-08-26
-
-## 结论
-
-14 条已接受 journey 都有可观察结果并全部为 `PASS`。2026-08-25 的初始候选曾把
-ZCode ACP promotion 记为诚实 `STOP`；2026-08-26 的 live activation 先复现并修复
-ZCode 0.16.5 runtime-preferences handshake，再通过国内 BigModel provider 完成真实
-receipt，因此该行已经由新证据取代。之后六 Host real user-HOME install/Doctor、
-Windows descendant cleanup 和 same-commit 三平台 CI 也分别完成；公共 registry 与
-GitHub Release 仍由最后的 release task 独立验证。
-
-这里的证据分为三类，不能互相冒充：
-
-- `source-contract`：验证 Skill 得到一致、可到达、可停止的导航合同，不断言任一模型的
-  实际表达质量；
-- `isolated-runtime`：运行真实 installer/Doctor/runner 代码，但只使用临时 config、fake
-  Codex registration 或 fake ACP/CLI target；
-- `live-provider`：六个 Host 分别完成 one bounded read-only ACP provider session；
-  receipt 只保留协议/result/进程/Git 事实和 digest，不保留 prompt 或 provider text。
-
-## Journey register
-
-| ID | Journey | Result | Observable success or stop | Executed evidence | Deliberate gap |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| J1 | Greenfield | PASS | `init/create` 停在 raw brief，`research/baseline` 以 selected coverage 与 stop condition 产出 accepted baseline，再推荐首个 Change | `tests/route-contract.test.cjs`; `docs/evals/ultra-5-0-route-journeys.md#j1--greenfield-baseline` | source-contract；六 Host live output 未跑 |
-| J2 | Existing project | PASS | 新请求先进入 Change；有界证据问题经 change-scoped Research 回到同一 `change_id`，accepted 后才进入 Plan | `tests/route-contract.test.cjs`; route journey J2 | source-contract；不把模型语义质量机械化 |
-| J3 | Micro edit | PASS | 不使 specification 失真的 edit 明确退出 Change lifecycle，使用 ordinary repository TDD/verification | `skills/ultra-change/SKILL.md`; `docs/WORKFLOW-LIFECYCLE.md#change-reconciliation` | source inspection；实际 edit 由调用项目验证 |
-| J4 | Owner revision | PASS | draft 原地修订；accepted consequential answer 以 `supersedes` record 保留旧 authority；拒绝现有选项不会默认进入 Plan | route journey J3；`skills/ultra-change/SKILL.md`; `skills/ultra-status/SKILL.md` | source-contract；owner judgment 不由 fixture 代替 |
-| J5 | Fresh session | PASS | 从 root/HEAD、唯一 active Change、matching ledger/context/Resume、baseline 与 Git 重建 Route Card，不重跑已完成 Research | `tests/ultra-5-journeys.test.cjs`; README；`docs/WORKFLOW-LIFECYCLE.md#interruption-and-cross-host-continuation` | 本地 artifact route；本轮未做六 Host live output 对比 |
-| J6 | Early value | PASS | Plan 的第一个 slice 必须穿过真实 consumer 与 data path，并命名 owner-visible observation | `tests/ultra-5-journeys.test.cjs`; `skills/ultra-plan/SKILL.md`; lifecycle | source-contract；真实产品 observation 由调用项目提供 |
-| J7 | Degraded state | PASS | 两个 active Change 产生 `active_change_ambiguous`；不读任一 intent body，不写 progress，并给出显式保留/archive/abandon/retry 路径 | `tests/ultra-5-journeys.test.cjs` 真实 SessionStart Hook scenario；Status/Review source | Review 在 ambiguity 时停在 packet write 前；不会制造 current scope |
-| J8 | Clean install delegation | PASS | isolated install 后从 loaded `ultra-delegate/scripts/delegate.cjs` 直接运行；不依赖 global `ubp`，Doctor 可见 runner；六个真实 Host home 的最终 Doctor 也都选择 ACP | `tests/install.test.cjs`; `tests/package-smoke.test.cjs`; migration fixture；`.ultra/evidence/v50-real-home-activation/` | published-registry consumer install 由 public-release task 验证 |
-| J9 | ACP happy path | PASS | stable v1 initialize -> session/new -> bounded derived updates -> exact Ultra terminal result | `tests/acp-driver.test.cjs`; `tests/delegate.test.cjs`; fake ACP agent | synthetic executable protocol evidence，不是 Host/provider conformance |
-| J10 | Permission denial | PASS | envelope 内写请求仅 `allow_once`；scope widening 立即拒绝，不能转成 successful Ultra result | `tests/acp-driver.test.cjs`; `tests/delegate.test.cjs` | fake agent；没有真实 provider permission UI |
-| J11 | Cancellation | PASS | cancel/timeout 到 typed terminal result，释放 delegation lock，POSIX process group 无 descendant orphan；`windows-latest` 的 cancel 与 timeout 也都终止真实 grandchild，可用 fresh id 重试 | `tests/delegate.test.cjs`; `tests/acp-driver.test.cjs`; GitHub Actions run `32935138736` | 若 Windows `taskkill` 不可用，fallback 只能保证 direct child cleanup |
-| J12 | CLI fallback | PASS | 六个 Host 都只在自己的 current receipt、stable ACP v1 和 executable 同时成立时选择 ACP；任一条件缺失仍选择 result-compatible CliDriver，并在 receipt/result/Doctor 显示 typed reason | `tests/acp-driver.test.cjs`; `tests/install.test.cjs`; six live receipts；migration Doctor scenario | provider retry 与 fallback 不自动改变 credential 或语义 authority |
-| J13 | ZCode bridge | PASS | installed ZCode 0.16.5 通过 `zcode-acp` v0.1.0 + digest-bound compatibility patch 接入 ACP v1，并用国内 BigModel provider 返回 exact Ultra result、clean Git 与 terminal worker | `skills/ultra-delegate/patches/zcode-acp-0.1.0-zcode-0.16.5.patch`; bridge receipt；`host-zcode.json`; live conformance report | transport maturity 仍为 `experimental`，因为 `app-server` 没有公开稳定性合同；缺 bridge/executable 时仍 typed fallback |
-| J14 | 3.x migration | PASS | 18 个 seeded project-owned files（覆盖 baseline、spec、active/archive Change、decision、task/context、Research、evidence、test report 与 binary bytes）在 install -> update -> Doctor -> uninstall 前后 mode、length 与 SHA-256 全相同；六 Host Doctor healthy 且显示 driver health | `tests/ultra-5-journeys.test.cjs` before/after digest 与 Doctor diagnostic | fixture 证明 updater 的真实文件边界，不声称覆盖未知第三方 artifact 语义 |
-
-## 可复现命令
-
-```bash
-node --test tests/ultra-5-journeys.test.cjs \
-  tests/route-contract.test.cjs \
-  tests/acp-driver.test.cjs \
-  tests/delegate.test.cjs \
-  tests/install.test.cjs \
-  tests/package-smoke.test.cjs
-```
-
-其中 migration case 会在临时目录执行六 Host install、第二次 install（update）、JSON
-Doctor 与 uninstall，并在 TAP diagnostic 中打印 canonical before/update/uninstall digest
-和每个 Host 的 selected driver/fallback reason。
-
-## 尚待 public-release task 完成的验证
-
-- 六个真实 Host 对同一 route fixture 的 Route Card 输出质量对比；
-- `v5.0.0` annotated tag、npm trusted publication、GitHub Release 与 published-package
-  consumer install 的同源性。
-
-六个 live ACP provider receipt、real-HOME activation、Windows cleanup 和三平台 CI
-已经完成；剩余 registry/release 缺口属于 public-release task，不会被本报告冒充完成。